Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It accurately states that rows are returned when cells contain the query, and mentions case-insensitivity and the limit. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe potential errors (e.g., invalid query format), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that covers the key aspects: dataset, search condition, case sensitivity, and limit. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully specifies the input behavior (search for text in any cell) and the output constraint (up to 50 rows). It does not mention ordering or pagination, which could be relevant for large results, but for a simple search operation, the provided context is sufficient. The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the straightforward nature of the operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes the 'query' parameter and its minLength, and the description clarifies that it is searched case-insensitively. The 'limit' parameter has type and range constraints but no description in the schema; the description mentions 'up to 50', which provides partial semantic coverage. Given 50% schema description coverage, the description adds some value but not comprehensive parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: searching rows of the WalkthroughDesk dataset based on cell content. The verb 'search' and the explicit dataset name make the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like dataset_columns and dataset_stats, which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description specifies that the search is case-insensitive and limited to 50 rows, providing clear usage constraints. While it doesn't explicitly compare against sibling tools, the distinct purpose is evident from the description, and the inclusion of the limit parameter offers practical guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.